Lt. Gen. Boykin Fired for Free Speech

a reply to: Kali74

Yes there is... and to suggest that there shouldn't be is it's own form or suppression. It seems that you want is the ability to stand near me all day and insult me but the second I open my mouth or exercise my right to dissociate with you... I'm in the wrong somehow.

I wouldn't say that. Bigotry, racism and hateful views are their own criticism. None of us want to associate with people like that. You're not in the wrong. But the only weapon against free speech is more free speech and more freedom.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

But - I believe we are acountable for our words. You want to argue that words have no poeer when it suits you - and that they have too much power when your argument goes awry

It goes awry when action occurs, the suppression of rights and freedoms. When people petition, drown out, legislate or suppress views with power and coercion—not words—it is no longer a matter of speech.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: JimiBlack

That's not free speech ... that's verbal assault on your wife.

Self-defense is precisely the correct response, IMO.

I beg to differ. It is his freedom to call my wife that, no? Is he not free to say whatever he wants per the First Amendment? Of course., as he should. But there are consequences to things you say and do.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Freedom to fire someone that can cost you business which does not in any kind of way violate free speech.

a reply to: introvert

I'm not going to answer that because I believe it to be a red herring. Saudi Arabia does not give it's people the same rights as we have in the US.

What you are doing is trying to create a philosophical argument that can only exist in a sterile environment outside of reality. You've already destroyed your own argument by saying I had the right to fire someone for their speech.

There are direct consequences for speech and the line of argument you are trying to take only exists in La La Land. Back in reality, you can't weasel your way out of being a loud-mouthed jackass.

Freedom of Expression is in every human rights code ever conceived. It is not an American phenomenon. Either way, your avoiding of the argument is indicative of your lack thereof.

There are no direct consequences of speech. A blogger getting executed for expressing his thoughts into words is a consequence of a repressive society, religion, government, or in your example, a repressive and thin-skinned employer.

a reply to: Kali74

Freedom to fire someone that can cost you business which does not in any kind of way violate free speech.

A person has a right to conduct his business how he sees fit. I agree.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It goes awry when action occurs, the suppression of rights and freedoms. When people petition, drown out, legislate or suppress views with power and coercion—not words—it is no longer a matter of speech.

The long way around to avoiding my original question:

Freedom of speech can only be preserved if it's available to all of us. Why do you never condemn the right? I'm sincerely curious

originally posted by: Swills
Hmmmm, I guess he got his job back with the out cry that he was fired over being PC, or lack there of.

College Reverses Firing of Ex-Army General After Transgender Bathroom Comments

An all-male college in Virginia has reversed its decision to fire a prominent retired U.S. Army general hours after reports that he was removed over political correctness provoked outcry.

Hampden-Sydney College decided to offer Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin a one-year contract, walking back its decision to fire Boykin after he made controversial comments about transgender bathrooms that angered LGBT activists.

Good to see the college come to their senses in what appears to be a knee-jerk reaction towards appeasing the activists who demanded he be fired for angering them....

“The first man who goes into the restroom with my daughter will not have to worry about surgery,” Boykin said of the debate surrounding transgender bathroom rules during a speech to conservatives in March.

The comments angered LGBT activists, dozens of whom signed a letter demanding the college fire him. They accused him of calling for violence against transgenders, he said.

“I never said homosexuals. I never said transgenders,” he told Fox. “I was really talking about these perverts who would use this as a way to get into the bathrooms with our wives and daughters.”

IMO the activists' feelings of anger (which motivated them to sign the letter) stems from them not being able to effectively rationalize the opinion of Boykin beyond an incitement to violence against transgenders.

Any father that has a daughter knows exactly what he meant when he said what he said - a clear warning to ANYONE who would consider exploiting the new bathroom gender laws for perverted intentions against innocent children and women.

a reply to: JimiBlack

Actually for clarity sake... fighting words are exempt in the Constitution from protected speech. No one has the right to call your wife a filthy whore.

originally posted by: JimiBlack

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: JimiBlack

That's not free speech ... that's verbal assault on your wife.

Self-defense is precisely the correct response, IMO.

I beg to differ. It is his freedom to call my wife that, no? Is he not free to say whatever he wants per the First Amendment? Of course., as he should. But there are consequences to things you say and do.

No, it is not his freedom to walk up to your table in a public place and call your wife that. That's verbal assault. Illegal.

The First Amendment states that government will not legislate against our right to speak our mind.

There are many exceptions to that ... slander, incitement to violence, etc.

But no, he has no "right" to abuse your wife. You do, on the other hand, have the right to defend her from assault.

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Freedom of speech can only be preserved if it's available to all of us. Why do you never condemn the right? I'm sincerely curious

I do, if and when it happens, which these days is pretty rare.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I see :-)

So - the right is the rightest?

How so?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I see :-)

So - the right is the rightest?

How so?

I oppose Islamism in any shape or form. Is that not right-wing enough for you?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Either way, your avoiding of the argument is indicative of your lack thereof.

On one hand, you say it is my right to dish-out the consequences to an employee because of their speech, and on the other try to equate it to the execution of a blogger in Saudi Arabia. You are not making reasonable comparisons and had to jump to hyperbole to make an irrelevant point. In fact, you contradict yourself.

I will not continue to go around in circles when you have already conceded on the major point, yet still focus on a philosophical argument that does not exist in reality.

Like I said, La La Land. You should know by now that I don't do nutter. I leave that for the nuts.

a reply to: introvert

You conceded on my point. Your non-sequitur that speech leads to consequences is not only unverifiable by any objective measure, but nothin short of superstition. I don't have time for the superstitious.

a reply to: Gryphon66

There are many exceptions to that ... slander, incitement to violence, etc.

So there are direct consequences. Hmmm...

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I oppose Islamism in any shape or form. Is that not right-wing enough for you?

Not an answer to my question

Me: Why do you never condemn the right? I'm sincerely curious

You: I do, if and when it happens, which these days is pretty rare.

I'll ask again. The right is rarely ever wrong? How so?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I did not concede on any point.

It is measurable. Try your argument in the court of law and see how it works.

Your approach is not only illogical, but delusional.

That is why your approach would only work in a sterile, philosophical environment.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Gryphon66

There are many exceptions to that ... slander, incitement to violence, etc.

So there are direct consequences. Hmmm...

I'd like to see some folks test out their pet theories in the laboratory of real life.

Often, I find, something that makes sense on virtual paper is utterly meaningless when it confronts actual reality.

Don't you?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I oppose Islamism in any shape or form. Is that not right-wing enough for you?

Not an answer to my question

Me: Why do you never condemn the right? I'm sincerely curious

You: I do, if and when it happens, which these days is pretty rare.

I'll ask again. The right is rarely ever wrong? How so?

It depends on the ideology. As of now, in western societies, it is the right that is upholding the values of the enlightenment.